Single and partial tooth replacement with fixed dental prostheses supported by dental implants: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical trials in the last 10 years.

AIM: To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on fixed single- and multiple-unit implant restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three independent electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were done to identify prospective and retrospective clinical studies published from January 2011 up to June 2021 with ≥20 patients and minimum 1-year follow-up period on technical and clinical outcomes of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and partial fixed dental prostheses (P-FDPs). An entire data extraction was performed to identify primarily the most reported outcome measures and later to define the choice of assessment methods of those outcome measures. The outcomes were analysed descriptively, and the strength of association was evaluated using the Pearson chi-square test (p ≤ .05). RESULTS: In a total 531 studies, 368 on SCs (69.3%), 70 on P-FDPs (13.1%), and 93 on both restoration types (17.5%) were included; 56.3% of all studies did not clearly define a primary outcome. The most frequent primary outcome was marginal bone level (MBL) (55.2%) followed by implant survival (5.3%), professional aesthetic evaluation (3.4%), and technical complications (2.1%). Peri-implant indices were the most reported secondary outcome (55.1%), followed by implant survival (39.9%), MBL (36%), and implant success (26.4%). Prosthetic failure (seven studies [3.9%]) was one of the least reported outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome measures and their assessment methods showed high heterogeneity among studies. Primary outcomes were not often defined clearly, and the most frequently selected primary outcome was marginal bone loss. Prosthetic outcomes, implant survival, and patient-related outcomes were only infrequently reported.

Single and partial tooth replacement with fixed dental prostheses supported by dental implants: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical trials in the last 10 years.

AIM: To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on fixed single- and multiple-unit implant restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three independent electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were done to identify prospective and retrospective clinical studies published from January 2011 up to June 2021 with ≥20 patients and minimum 1-year follow-up period on technical and clinical outcomes of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and partial fixed dental prostheses (P-FDPs). An entire data extraction was performed to identify primarily the most reported outcome measures and later to define the choice of assessment methods of those outcome measures. The outcomes were analysed descriptively, and the strength of association was evaluated using the Pearson chi-square test (p ≤ .05). RESULTS: In a total 531 studies, 368 on SCs (69.3%), 70 on P-FDPs (13.1%), and 93 on both restoration types (17.5%) were included; 56.3% of all studies did not clearly define a primary outcome. The most frequent primary outcome was marginal bone level (MBL) (55.2%) followed by implant survival (5.3%), professional aesthetic evaluation (3.4%), and technical complications (2.1%). Peri-implant indices were the most reported secondary outcome (55.1%), followed by implant survival (39.9%), MBL (36%), and implant success (26.4%). Prosthetic failure (seven studies [3.9%]) was one of the least reported outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome measures and their assessment methods showed high heterogeneity among studies. Primary outcomes were not often defined clearly, and the most frequently selected primary outcome was marginal bone loss. Prosthetic outcomes, implant survival, and patient-related outcomes were only infrequently reported.

Clinical decision-making and management of stage IV periodontitis: A survey.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical management of stage IV periodontitis patients among clinicians within the Italian Society of Periodontology and Implantology. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was designed on a web-based anonymous survey. Comparison between ordinary members (OMs) versus active and certified members (ACMs) and comparison between members with at least 10 years of experience in periodontology (Ov10) and members with less than 10 years of experience in periodontology (Un10) were performed. RESULTS: A total of 324 out of 1362 members (response rate of 24%) responded to the questionnaire. ACMs and Ov10 more often reported their teams hold adequate skills to manage cases. Step I and II periodontal therapy took more time in the ACMs and Ov10 groups. ACMs used different strategies to perform step I-II therapy, and antibiotics were used less frequently than OMs. Unresponsive sites were treated more often with surgery by ACMs compared to OMs. ACMs adopted different treatment sequences compared to OMs. Ov10 group used more often CBCT, lateral cephalogram, and wax-up while Un10 group tend to avoid orthodontic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: More experienced members spent more time in step I and II of periodontal therapy, used more diagnostic tools, and performed more often surgery and orthodontics in the treatment of stage IV periodontitis patients.

Immediate versus early non-occlusal loading of dental implants placed flapless in partially edentulous patients: A 10-year randomized clinical trial.

AIM: To compare immediate versus early non-occlusal loading of dental implants placed flapless in a 10-year, parallel group, randomized clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive implants for fixed partial dentures. The immediate group was represented by immediate non-occlusal implant loading, whereas the early group was represented by early non-occlusal implant loading. The outcome variables were implant failure, complications, subjective satisfaction and radiographic bone level at implant sites 10 years after loading. RESULTS: Sixty patients were randomized: 30 to the immediately loaded group and 30 to the early loaded group. Three patients dropped out in the immediate group, and three patients dropped out in the early group. One implant failure occurred in the early group (p = 1.0). Three complications occurred in the immediate group and four in the early group (RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.04, p = 1.0). The difference in bone level was 0.1 mm (95% CI -0.2 to 0.5, p = .3752) favouring the early group. Difference in subjective functional satisfaction was 0.2 (95% CI -0.2 to 0.7; p = .3271). Difference in subjective aesthetic satisfaction was 0.0 (95% CI -0.4 to 0.4; p = .9656). CONCLUSION: At 10-year follow-up, no differences between implants loaded immediately and early were detected in this randomized clinical trial.

Regenerative surgery versus access flap for the treatment of intra-bony periodontal defects: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to compare clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) in intra-bony defects treated with regenerative surgery or access flap. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review protocol was written following the PRISMA checklist. Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on regenerative treatment of deep intra-bony defects (≥3 mm) with a follow-up of at least 12 months. Primary outcome variables were probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, clinical attachment level (CAL) gain and tooth loss. Secondary outcome variables were Rec, radiographic bone gain, pocket "closure," PROMs and adverse events. Meta-analysis was carried out when possible. To evaluate treatment effect, odds ratios were combined for dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data using a random-effect model. RESULTS: A total of 79 RCTs (88 articles) published from 1990 to 2019 and accounting for 3,042 patients and 3,612 intra-bony defects were included in this systematic review. Only 10 of included studies were rated at low risk of bias. A total of 13 meta-analyses were performed. All regenerative procedures provided adjunctive benefit in terms of CAL gain (1.34 mm; 0.95-1.73) compared with open flap debridement alone. Both enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) were superior to OFD alone in improving CAL (1.27 mm; 0.79-1.74 mm and 1.43 mm; 0.76-2.22, respectively), although with moderate-high heterogeneity. Among biomaterials, the addition of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) improved the clinical outcomes of both GTR with resorbable barriers and EMD. Papillary preservation flaps enhanced the clinical outcomes. The strength of evidence was low to moderate. CONCLUSION: EMD or GTR in combination with papillary preservation flaps should be considered the treatment of choice for residual pockets with deep (≥3 mm) intra-bony defects.

Root coverage procedures improve patient aesthetics. A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review (SR) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore if periodontal plastic surgery procedures for the treatment of single and multiple gingival recessions (Rec) may improve aesthetics at patient and professional levels. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In order to combine evidence from direct and indirect comparisons by different trials a Bayesian network meta-analysis (BNM) was planned. A literature search on PubMed, Cochrane libraries, EMBASE, and hand-searched journals until January 2016 was conducted to identify RCTs presenting aesthetic outcomes after root coverage using standardized evaluations at patient and professional level. RESULTS: A total of 16 RCTs were selected in the SR; three RTCs presenting professional aesthetic evaluation with Root coverage Aesthetic Score (RES) and three showing final self-perception using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS Est) could be included in a BNM model. Coronally Advanced Flap plus Connective Tissue Graft (CAF + CTG) and CAF + Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) and Autologous Fibroblasts (AF) were associated with the best RES outcomes (best probability = 24% and 64%, respectively), while CAF + CTG and CAF + CTG + Enamel matrix Derivatives (EMD) obtained highest values of VAS Est score (best probability = 44% and 26%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Periodontal Plastic Surgery (PPS) techniques applying grafts underneath CAF with or without the adding of EMD are associated with improved aesthetics assessed by final patient perception and RES as professional evaluation system.

A minimally invasive technique for lateral maxillary sinus floor elevation: a Bayesian network study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe a minimally invasive technique for lateral maxillary sinus elevation and to identify the relationship between the involved factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study on patients treated with an original minimally invasive technique for lateral maxillary sinus elevation in a private dental clinic from 2008 to 2013. Failures, complications, and radiographic measurements were registered 9 months after surgery at the provisional prosthesis delivery. The relationship between demographic and clinical factors was investigated using Bayesian network analyses. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-four patients (147 maxillary sinuses) were treated, and 242 implants were placed. Seven patients dropped out. A total of two implants in two patients failed. Perforation of the sinus membrane occurred in seven patients (6%). Five different complications in five patients were observed. Mean peri-implant marginal bone level 9 months after surgery was 1.10 ± 0.74 mm. Mean vertical bone gain was 7.44 ± 1.95 mm. Perforation was more frequently observed in patients that did not undergo the sedation procedure. Complications (excluding perforation and including implant failure) were more frequent in cases where only bone substitutes were used. CONCLUSIONS: This technique can be considered noninvasive, with a low early failure and early complication rate.

Long-term outcomes of soft tissue augmentation around dental implants on soft and hard tissue stability: a systematic review.

AIM: To investigate whether the height and volume of the soft tissues and peri-implant bone levels around dental implants are stable, when soft tissue augmentation has been performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three operators conducted a search on electronic databases (MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE) and a hand searching on the main journals dealing with periodontology and implantology until 30 October 2014. Only articles that considered peri-implant soft tissue augmentation performed in a group of at least 10 patients and with a follow-up of at least 1 year were selected. The outcome variables were peri-implant attached/keratinized tissue width (KTW) changes, peri-implant marginal soft tissue level (PSL) changes, and peri-implant marginal bone level (PBL) changes. The review was performed according to the PRISMA statements. RESULTS: Ten articles were selected for the qualitative synthesis, but only one meta-analysis was accomplished, indicating that 1 year after implant recession coverage procedures, a mean gain of 1.65 ± 0.01 mm (90% CrI [1.44; 1.85]) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: There is no long-term evidence whether augmented soft tissues can be maintained over time and able to influence the peri-implant bone levels.

Efficacy of periodontal plastic surgery procedures in the treatment of localized facial gingival recessions. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this Systematic Review (SR) was to assess the clinical efficacy of periodontal plastic surgery procedures in the treatment of localized gingival recessions (Rec) with or without inter-dental clinical attachment loss (iCAL). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on treatment of single gingival recessions with at least 6 months of follow-up. Primary outcome variable was complete root coverage (CRC). Secondary outcome variables were recession reduction (RecRed) and keratinized tissue (KT) gain. To evaluate treatment effect, Odds Ratios were combined for dichotomous data and mean differences in continuous data using a random-effect model. RESULTS: Fifty-one RCTs (53 articles) with a total of 1574 treated patients (1744 recessions) were included in this SR. Finally, 30 groups of comparisons were identified and a total of 80 meta-analyses were performed. Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) was associated with higher probability of CRC and higher amount of RecRed than Semilunar Coronal Positioned Flap (SCPF). The combination CAF plus Connective Tissue Graft (CAF+CTG) or CAF plus Enamel Matrix Derivative (CAF+EMD) was more effective than CAF alone in terms of CRC and RecRed. The combination CAF plus Collagen Matrix (CAF+CM) achieved higher RecRed than CAF alone. In addition, CAF+CTG achieved CRC more frequently than CAF+EMD, SCPF, Free Gingival Graft (FGG) and Laterally Positioned Flap (LPS). CAF+CTG was also associated with higher RecRed than Barrier Membranes (CAF+GTR), CAF+EMD and CAF+CM. GTR was not able to improve the clinical efficacy of CAF. Studies adding Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) under CAF showed a large heterogeneity and not significant benefits compared with CAF alone. Multiple combinations, using more than a single graft/biomaterial under the flap, usually provide similar or less benefits than simpler, control procedures in term of root coverage outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: CAF procedures alone or with CTG, EMD are supported by large evidence in modern periodontal plastic surgery. CAF+CTG achieved the best clinical outcomes in single gingival recessions with or without iCAL.

Inter-rater agreement in the diagnosis of mucositis and peri-implantitis.

AIM: The objective was to assess the inter-rater agreement in the diagnosis of mucositis and peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Adult patients with ≥ 1 dental implant were eligible. Three operators examined the patients. One examiner allocated the patients to three groups of nine as follows: nine implants with peri-implantitis, nine implants with mucositis, and 9 implants with healthy mucosa. Each examiner recorded on all 27 patients (one implant per patient) recessions, probing depth, bleeding on probing, suppuration, keratinized tissue depth and bone loss, leading to a final diagnosis of mucositis, peri-implantitis or healthy mucosa. Examiners were independent and blinded to each other. RESULTS: Fleiss k-statistic with quadratic weight in the diagnosis of peri-implantitis and mucositis was 0.66 [CI95%: 0.45-0.87]. A complete agreement was obtained only in 14 cases (52%). Fleiss k-statistics in bleeding on probing and bone loss were respectively 0.31 [CI95%: 0.20-0.41] and 0.70 [CI95%: 0.45-0.94]. Intra-class correlation coefficients for recession, probing depth and keratinized tissue depth were respectively 0.69 [CI95%: 0.62-0.75], 0.54 [CI95%: 0.44-0.63] and 0.56 [CI95%: 0.27-0.77]. CONCLUSIONS: The inter-rater agreement in the diagnosis of peri-implant disease was qualified as merely good. This could also be due in part to the unclear definition of peri-implantitis and mucositis.

Masticatory Function in Stage IV Periodontitis Patients Treated with Fixed Prosthetic Rehabilitations: A Case Series.

The present study assessed the impact of a fixed prosthetic rehabilitation on masticatory function in patients diagnosed with stage IV periodontitis. Eligible participants were adults in need of complex rehabilitation due to masticatory dysfunction. Masticatory function was evaluated using the two-colored chewing gum mixing ability test (VOH) at the diagnostic phase (T0), 1 week after delivery of the prosthetic prototype (T1), and 1 week after delivery of the final prosthetic solution (T2). Ten subjects were treated with a fixed prosthesis following periodontal and implant surgery using an individualized, fully digital workflow. Full-mouth plaque and bleeding scores, pocket depth, and clinical attachment level improved significantly. VOH was 0.472 ± 0.168 at T0, 0.358 ± 0.166 at T1, and 0.250 ± 0.123 at T2. A significant improvement in VOH was observed from T0 to T1 (difference: -0.114; 95% CI: -0.199 to -0.029; P = .014) and from T1 to T2 (difference: -0.108; 95% CI: -0.200 to -0.015; P = .027). From T0 to T2, VOH increased by 44.3%. Self-perceived assessment of masticatory function also improved from T0 to T2 (P = .002). The fixed prosthetic rehabilitation in patients with stage IV periodontitis allowed for a significant improvement in objective and subjective measurements of masticatory function.

Patient perceptions of buccal gingival recessions and requests for treatment.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to verify patients' perception of buccal recessions and their requests for treatment. METHODS: The patients filled out a questionnaire dealing with demographic variables and perception of buccal gingival recessions. A calibrated examiner checked for recessions and recorded the clinical variables. Then, the patients were asked to explain what they believed to be the causes of the recessions and whether they were interested in obtaining treatment of their lesions. Descriptive statistics and multilevel logistic models were used. RESULTS: Of 120 enrolled patients, 96 presented 783 gingival recessions, of which 565 were unperceived. Of 218 perceived recessions, 160 were asymptomatic, 36 showed dental hypersensitivity, 13 aesthetics, 9 aesthetic + hypersensitivity issues. Only 11 patients requested treatment for their 57 recessions. Younger individuals (p = 0.0077), deeper recessions (p < 0.0001), incisors and canines (p < 0.0001) and non-carious cervical lesions (p = 0.0441) were significantly associated with patient perception of own recessions. Younger subjects (p = 0.0118), deeper recessions (p = 0.0387) and incisors (p = 0.0232) were significantly associated with patient request of treatment. Four hundred and sixty-eight recessions (60%) were not ascribed to exact causes by the patients. CONCLUSION: This study shows that perception of gingival recessions and the patients' requests for treatment should be evaluated carefully before proceeding with decision making.

Evaluation of the literature: evidence assessment tools for clinicians.

The progressive improvement in the quality of scientific articles has led to an increase in difficulty in reading and interpreting them so that now clinical knowledge and experience must be complemented by methodological, statistical and computer skills. The aim of this article is to offer practitioners the tools, the simplest keys, that will allow them to understand and critically judge the results of scientific studies. The "peer-review" process of a clinical article submitted to a journal is described and the Science Citation Index and the Impact Factor are presented to the reader as essential instruments to evaluate a specific article's impact and the impact of a given journal on the scientific world, respectively. An article should be evaluated on the basis of some key issues which include, at least, an assessment of methodological aspects, a critical analysis of the statistical component and a proper understanding of the clinical impact of the study outcomes. The standard approach for evaluating the quality of individual studies is based on a hierarchical grading system of research design which represents an essential tool to identify the strength of the evidence of an article. Many different biases may affect the reliability of study results. Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) and Systematic Reviews (SRs) are able to minimize the number of biases and thus are at the highest level of the scale of evidence representing the final steps of a treatment's "career." Finally, moving from research to clinical practice, attention on the clinical impact of study's outcomes is of paramount importance as the literature contains studies (including RCTs) that present statistically significant results but which, from the clinical standpoint, are only relatively or not at all significant. Clinical Practice Guidelines represent a useful tool for practitioners assisting the decision-making process when choosing the most appropriate treatment for their patients.

Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in implant dentistry. A systematic review on critical aspects in design, outcome assessment and clinical relevance.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to assess the quality of reporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of implant dentistry, its evolution over time and the possible relations between quality items and reported outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs in implant dentistry were retrieved through electronic and hand searches. Risk of bias in individual studies was assessed focusing on study design, outcome assessment and clinical relevance. Associations between quality items and year of publication of RCTs or reporting of statistically significant outcomes were tested. RESULTS: Among the 495 originally screened manuscripts published from 1989 to April 2011, 276 RCTs were assessed in this SR; 59% of them were published between 2006 and 2011. RCTs were mainly parallel (65%), with a single centre (83%) and a superiority design (88%). Trials in implant dentistry showed several methodological flaws: only 37% showed a random sequence generation at low risk of bias, 75% did not provide information on allocation concealment, only 12% performed a correct sample size calculation, the examiner was blind solely in 42% of studies where blinding was feasible. In addition, only 21% of RCTs declared operator experience and 31% reported patient-related outcomes. Many quality items improved over time. Allocation concealment at high risk of bias (p = 0.0125), no information on drop-out (p = 0.0318) and lack of CONSORT adherence (p = 0.0333) were associated with statistically significant reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of reporting of RCTs in implant dentistry is poor and only partially improved in the last years. Caution is suggested when interpreting these RCTs since risk of bias was associated with higher chance of reporting of statistically significant results.

Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation in the Severely Atrophied Maxilla: Concentrated Growth Factors Versus Bone Substitutes. A Controlled Clinical Trial.

The present study clinically and radiographically compares the outcome of implants inserted in maxillary sinuses augmented with concentrated growth factors (CGFs) or demineralized bovine bone matrix (DBBM) in a one-stage lateral approach. In 20 patients with a residual bone height of 1 to 4 mm, lateral sinus floor elevation was performed, using CGFs or DBBM as the sole grafting material, with simultaneous implant placement. Outcome variables were implant and prosthesis failures, complications, subjective satisfaction, and radiographic changes in marginal bone level (MBL) 12 months after surgery. The patients were consecutively recruited: 10 to the CGF group and 10 to the DBBM group. No implant failed in either group at 12 months postsurgery, and there were no complications. There was no statistically significant difference in MBL change between the CGF and DBBM groups (difference of -0.3 mm, favoring the CGF group; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.8 to 0.2; P = .18). There was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction (difference of 0.2, favoring the CGF group; 95% CI: -0.2 to 0.6; P = .29). Within the limitations of the present study, the lateral sinus floor elevation performed with the use of CGFs as the sole grafting material showed implant survival rates and marginal bone level changes comparable to DBBM grafting.

The Multilayer GBR Technique: An Alternative Approach for One-Stage Transmucosal Implant Placement in the Presence of Horizontal Defects. A Case Series.

This study presents a one-stage technique for horizontal guided bone regeneration and transmucosal implant placement in the presence of hard and soft tissue defects. The proposed technique uses autologous bone particles, deproteinized bovine bone matrix, collagen membranes, and concentrated growth factor membranes to create a multilayer barrier and enhance tissue regeneration. Four patients were treated with a total of seven implants. Digital analyses of intraoral scan data taken at baseline and at 6 months postsurgery showed a mean increase in tissue volume of 157.4 mm3. The patient satisfaction was high, and no complications were observed.

The interproximal clinical attachment level to classify gingival recessions and predict root coverage outcomes: an explorative and reliability study.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were (i) to test the reliability of a new classification system of gingival recessions using the level of interproximal clinical attachment as an identification criterion and (ii) to explore the predictive value of the resulting classification system on the final root coverage outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients showing at least one buccal gingival recession were recruited by one operator. Three recession types (RT) were identified. While class RT1 included gingival recession with no loss of interproximal attachment, class RT2 recession was associated with interproximal attachment loss less than or equal to the buccal site and class RT3 showed higher interproximal attachment loss than the buccal site. The classification was tested by two examiners blinded to the data collected by the other examiner. Intra-rater and inter-rater agreement was assessed. Furthermore, the 6-month root coverage outcomes of consecutively treated gingival recessions were retrospectively evaluated in order to explore the predictive value of the proposed classification on the final recession reduction (Rec Red). RESULTS: The new classification system of gingival recessions was tested in a total of 116 gingival recessions (mean 3.2±1.2 mm) in 25 patients. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter-rater agreement was 0.86, showing an almost perfect agreement between the examiners. The RT classification was predictive of the final Rec Red (p<0.0001) at the 6-month follow-up in 109 treated gingival recessions. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of interproximal clinical attachment level may be used to classify gingival recession defects and to predict the final root coverage outcomes.

Use of autogenous bone versus deproteinised bovine bone matrix in one-stage lateral sinus floor elevation in severely atrophied maxillae: A 7-year randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare 100% deproteinised bovine bone matrix grafts (DBBM, test group) and 100% autogenous bone grafts (AB, control group) for lateral maxillary sinus floor elevation in a blinded, parallel-group, randomised clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with 1 to 3 mm of residual bone height were randomised for sinus floor elevation with DBBM or AB grafts and simultaneous implant placement. The outcome variables were implant failure, complications, subjective satisfaction and radiographic peri-implant bone level 7 years after loading. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients (27 implants) were randomised to the test group and 20 (32 implants) to the control group. Ten patients from the test group and seven from the control group dropped out. Two implant failures occurred in the test group, whereas none were observed in the control group (P = 0.178). One complication occurred in the test group and two were recorded in the control group (P = 1.000). The radiographic peri-implant crestal bone level was 2.5 ± 1.3 mm in the test group and 0.9 ± 0.9 mm in the control group. The difference was 1.6 mm, favouring the control group (95% confidence interval 0.7-2.6; P = 0.002). The difference in vertical bone height was -0.4 mm, favouring the control group (95% confidence interval -1.9-1.1; P = 0.590). The difference in satisfaction measured using a visual analogue scale 7 years after loading was 0.0 mm (95% confidence interval -1.0-0.0; P = 0.639). CONCLUSIONS: Differences between treatments were found for crestal bone level, favouring the control group. No differences were observed for the other variables evaluated.

The Fence Technique: 100% Autogenous Bone Graft vs 50% Deproteinized Bovine Bone Matrix and 50% Autogenous Bone Graft. A Histologic Randomized Controlled Trial.

The aim of this histologic, single-blind, parallel, randomized clinical trial was to compare vertical bone augmentation grafting with 100% autogenous bone (group AB) vs 50% deproteinized bovine bone matrix (DBBM)/50% autogenous bone (group BOAB) using the Fence Technique in a two-stage implant placement. A biopsy was performed in the regenerated area at implant insertion 6 months after the augmentation surgery. The results reflect a sample size of four patients treated per group. At implant placement, 6 months after grafting, no significant differences were evident in the histomorphometric comparisons, even if the percentage of residual graft was obviously greater in the BOAB group (P = .0314).